Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT)vsEBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07)
See exactly how Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) controls map to EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) maps to EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) with 39% coverage across 11 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 28 Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) controls identifies 17 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Supply Chain Security.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 28 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 20 of 21 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.
Supply Chain Security(19 mappings)
Cybersecurity and Compliance(1 mappings)
+1 more mappings
Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 693 frameworks.
Create Free Account →Free forever — no credit card required
Related Comparisons
Other Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) comparisons
Other EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 693 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
- ✓ 824 compliance assessments
- ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Professional
- ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
- ✓ Unlimited full-text search
- ✓ Framework self-assessment
- ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
What are the key differences between Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) and EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07)?
Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) has 28 controls across its framework, while EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) covers 26 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 11 overlapping controls (39% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Supply Chain Security, where 15 Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) controls have no direct EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) equivalent.
How many controls map between Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) and EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07)?
Of 28 total Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) controls, 11 map directly to EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) controls — representing 39% coverage. The remaining 17 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) to EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07)?
17 Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) controls have no direct equivalent in EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07). The highest concentration of gaps is in Supply Chain Security with 15 unmapped controls. These gaps represent areas where additional controls, policies, or documentation must be created to achieve compliance with both frameworks.
Which control domains have the most gaps between Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) and EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07)?
The domain with the highest gap count is Supply Chain Security (15 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.
Related Resources
This platform provides educational compliance tools, not legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. Cross-framework mappings are AI-assisted interpretations and do not reproduce or replace official standards. Framework names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Consult qualified professionals for your specific compliance requirements. See our Terms of Service.